Fox News is not a news organization

Idlewind thanks for your thoughtful, respectful, insightful postl. I mostly agree with your analysis of news organizations and various types of programs they offer. perhaps all news organizations do have a slant but they really shouldn't be so blatantly obvious. Why is it that Fox News is the ONLY one that has such an obvious slant to the far right - and their kind of programming can be inflammatory, obviously geared to satisfy the "news" needs of just a certain group of Americans? I think this is what many here have a problem with.

people say NPR is "liberal". Many appreciate the fact that NPR consistent presents programs which are highly professional, offering excellent coverage and reporting (without the drama), timely and thought provoking, covering science, education and issues from around the globe, and never ever resorting to inflammatory programming. just educational with an intent to broaden our understanding of the world, cultures, events, history, issues, etc. all in an interesting but very friendly kind of program designed to encourage input and perspective from all sides - respectfully. I guess PBS is liberal too.

so, yes, News organizations definitely put out their own slant and their own philosophy - and we can clearly see which one works for us. Fox has worked to brand itself as fair and accurate - and that is the kicker for many - its just absurd. seems contradictory to me to say you are fair and accurate when you are pushing one rather extreme agenda.

Fox is no more inflamatory than MSNBC. NPR and PBS lean liberal but like Fox like to present themselves and fair and balanced. Traditionally the Christian Science Monitor has the reputation of being fair but some will challenge that.
I would submit that Fox has better ratings for two reasons: 1 based on polls the majority in this country tend to be right of center and 2) Fox is the only major news organization that leans right of center.
The bottom line is that if you want to be well rounded you need to review material from several different sources. I watch Morning Joe alot and sometimes would like to throw something at the TV but the discourse causes me to think and investigate. I do not get that from Fox as a rule because I tend to agree with them.

Fox is no more inflamatory than MSNBC. NPR and PBS lean liberal but like Fox like to present themselves and fair and balanced. Traditionally the Christian Science Monitor has the reputation of being fair but some will challenge that.
I would submit that Fox has better ratings for two reasons: 1 based on polls the majority in this country tend to be right of center and 2) Fox is the only major news organization that leans right of center.
The bottom line is that if you want to be well rounded you need to review material from several different sources. I watch Morning Joe alot and sometimes would like to throw something at the TV but the discourse causes me to think and investigate. I do not get that from Fox as a rule because I tend to agree with them.

I don't watch MSNBC so I can't really comment on who is more inflammatory. NPR and PBS are no where near like Fox in how they do things - in any regard - at least in my opinion. They do not claim to be anything they are not - at least I've never noticed this. I think we all agree that several sources are in order to be well informed - from TV, internet, radio, etc.. Lots of folks like BBC America these days... However, I still submit that the entire reason for this thread is that some people do not appreciate the kind of programming offered by Fox. It can be anywhere from high drama/entertaining to just plain insulting. and surely there are some good reports in between but I am not interested in the least - not even for the entertainment value. At some point you gotta stop being disgusted and find those outlets that meet your own requirements for fair and balanced.

I would not mind the right-leaning point of view so much if it was delivered in a civil manner. I simply don't want all that negative talk (energy) in my space. The few times I have attempted to listen to Fox...I just can't get past the lack of civil discourse.

MSNBC may be liberal and slanted, but at least the commentary is for the most part polite and articulate...at least more so than the Fox. And, certainly Joe Scarborough (who used to be our Representative) is anything but liberal, but he is civil and well spoken; Pat Buchanan is certainly no liberal, but again he is well spoken and the points he brings up are not my political preference, but I respect him for hanging in there and being able to articulate a point of view without demeaning a whole group of people. Bill O'Reilly has actually written a book or two that I enjoyed reading...I just can't stand his smirk and voice--I watch/listen to Keith O once in awhile just because I love the way he uses the language--

I would not mind the right-leaning point of view so much if it was delivered in a civil manner. I simply don't want all that negative talk (energy) in my space. The few times I have attempted to listen to Fox...I just can't get past the lack of civil discourse.

MSNBC may be liberal and slanted, but at least the commentary is for the most part polite and articulate...at least more so than the Fox. And, certainly Joe Scarborough (who used to be our Representative) is anything but liberal, but he is civil and well spoken; Pat Buchanan is certainly no liberal, but again he is well spoken and the points he brings up are not my political preference, but I respect him for hanging in there and being able to articulate a point of view without demeaning a whole group of people. Bill O'Reilly has actually written a book or two that I enjoyed reading...I just can't stand his smirk and voice--I watch/listen to Keith O once in awhile just because I love the way he uses the language--

I think the bottom line is to each his/her on. Ain't it great to live in America where we have so many options and so many voices?

I would not mind the right-leaning point of view so much if it was delivered in a civil manner. I simply don't want all that negative talk (energy) in my space. The few times I have attempted to listen to Fox...I just can't get past the lack of civil discourse.

MSNBC may be liberal and slanted, but at least the commentary is for the most part polite and articulate...at least more so than the Fox. And, certainly Joe Scarborough (who used to be our Representative) is anything but liberal, but he is civil and well spoken; Pat Buchanan is certainly no liberal, but again he is well spoken and the points he brings up are not my political preference, but I respect him for hanging in there and being able to articulate a point of view without demeaning a whole group of people. Bill O'Reilly has actually written a book or two that I enjoyed reading...I just can't stand his smirk and voice--I watch/listen to Keith O once in awhile just because I love the way he uses the language--

bottom line. thanks.

its attitude.

I think the bottom line is to each his/her on. Ain't it great to live in America where we have so many options and so many voices?

Yes, and a TV/computer that has an "Off" button!

PBS and NPR are 2 news outlets that to me, are so much more than news. There are no better sources for those of us who are curious about the world- other countries, cultures, events, all presented in a way that I feel like I am getting a mostly honest picture, instead of a view through the "American lens" of what American news sources and political groups consider to be normal, moral, correct, and American-like. The "rah rah go USA " stuff has become an acceptable way to judge people/places/thing/governments, etc. that aren't "American enough", and it has spilled over in to journalism. Fox of course is the worst at this type of journalism, but the others aren't so great either, and they do let the judging creep into the reporting, instead of just telling the story without the undercurrent of judging.

It is so pleasant to listen to an interview on NPR with someone from a far away place or watch a well-produced PBS documentary, both without the source constantly hyping themselves every 5 seconds.

I guess NPR and PBS are considered liberal because their audience is an intellectually curious group? If this is the liberal elite that is criticized by conservatives, bring it on.

PBS and NPR are 2 news outlets that to me, are so much more than news. There are no better sources for those of us who are curious about the world- other countries, cultures, events, all presented in a way that I feel like I am getting a mostly honest picture, instead of a view through the "American lens" of what American news sources and political groups consider to be normal, moral, correct, and American-like. The "rah rah go USA " stuff has become an acceptable way to judge people/places/thing/governments, etc. that aren't "American enough", and it has spilled over in to journalism. Fox of course is the worst at this type of journalism, but the others aren't so great either, and they do let the judging creep into the reporting, instead of just telling the story without the undercurrent of judging.

It is so pleasant to listen to an interview on NPR with someone from a far away place or watch a well-produced PBS documentary, both without the source constantly hyping themselves every 5 seconds.

I guess NPR and PBS are considered liberal because their audience is an intellectually curious group? If this is the liberal elite that is criticized by conservatives, bring it on.

I agree. And, the fact that there are no dumbed-down commercials, is icing on the cake.

To many, intellectual and liberal elite are not necessarily synonymous.

PBS and NPR are 2 news outlets that to me, are so much more than news. There are no better sources for those of us who are curious about the world- other countries, cultures, events, all presented in a way that I feel like I am getting a mostly honest picture, instead of a view through the "American lens" of what American news sources and political groups consider to be normal, moral, correct, and American-like. The "rah rah go USA " stuff has become an acceptable way to judge people/places/thing/governments, etc. that aren't "American enough", and it has spilled over in to journalism. Fox of course is the worst at this type of journalism, but the others aren't so great either, and they do let the judging creep into the reporting, instead of just telling the story without the undercurrent of judging.

It is so pleasant to listen to an interview on NPR with someone from a far away place or watch a well-produced PBS documentary, both without the source constantly hyping themselves every 5 seconds.

I guess NPR and PBS are considered liberal because their audience is an intellectually curious group? If this is the liberal elite that is criticized by conservatives, bring it on.

.
One thing that is telling to me is that the callers on shows like Rheems, although they are screened, have legitimate, well-thought-out questions. So either fewer listeners are "sound bite" folks or the station does a good job of screening callers so the issue can be covered without sensationalism.

I prefer NPR, PBS and BBC also. I enjoy Maddow even though I don't always agree with her, because her topics often provoke thought. Plus she is a smart commentator who you know has a liberal slant but she doesn't SHOUT DOWN her guests. I refuse to listen to commentators who do that. :angry:



.

To many, intellectual and liberal elite are not necessarily synonymous.

I would say these terms are nowhere near synonymous.. I don't even know what you mean here. intellectual can apply to anyone from any country, political party, group, community who has the capacity for thinking, reasoning, open minded curiousity and a desire for seeking accurate and well rounded information about the world.

liberal elite is a label some people from a group place on another group in order to put them in their proper place. usually not a very positive meaning term, but some people have that need to categorize in such a way.

I would say these terms are nowhere near synonymous.. I don't even know what you mean here. intellectual can apply to anyone from any country, political party, group, community who has the capacity for thinking, reasoning, open minded curiousity and a desire for seeking accurate and well rounded information about the world.

liberal elite is a label some people from a group place on another group in order to put them in their proper place. usually not a very positive meaning term, but some people have that need to categorize in such a way.

Frankly, I?ve never understood why some think that being elite and intellectual is a ?bad? thing.
Tootsie, I think you may have nailed the reason in your post above.

I looked these words up the other day to see if I had missed the negative part. Don't think so.

elite: often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. ( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
intellectual
in?tel?lec?tu?al
[in-tl-ek-choo-uh l]
?adjective
1. appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.
2. of or pertaining to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, esp. to a high degree: an intellectual person.
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect: an intellectual way of speaking.
?noun
6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.
10. intellectuals, Archaic .
a. the mental faculties.
b. things pertaining to the intellect.
conservative
con?serv?a?tive
Spelled[kuh n-sur-vuh-tiv]
?adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
?noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great

Thanks for the lesson GW. sometimes we need to stop and remember the meaning of terms we so easily throw around.

is there such thing as conservative elite? why or why not?

Elite, when referring to people's political sensibilities, just doesn't quite cut it. Elite has to do with a class of people - influential, wealthy, etc. A class of elite people can come from any political party, I am thinking. It can be a very conservative leaning person with money or with power of some kind. It can be a hollywood movie star or director, or a certain social class here or any corner of the world. I guess its a term coined by the right to try to convince their own that liberals are elite? elite can be a negative term if you consider an upper class group who doesn't care about the rights or conditions of the lower social classes - I know no liberals who could or would ever think in those terms.

whatever the reason may be for using the term - its inaccurate. I know quite a few very intelligent people who are educated at pretty good levels - most do well financially through education and hard work. some are republicans and some democrats, and many independents... but almost none are elite in any way that I know of.

liberal elite, conservative elite, independent elite. its an interesting concept. but here in America, it doesn't really describe anything I've ever seen, or anyONE I have ever known. I think its just become another lame label used to divide people. I would like to put a label on people who enjoy insulting labels but enough of that.

You can call it as many names as you want, but I will always think intelligence and a good education are things to be proud of, to celebrate, and to value.

You can call it as many names as you want, but I will always think intelligence and a good education are things to be proud of, to celebrate, and to value.

Yes, I agree with all you say but I think in many cases education is overblown, as many can do quite well with moderate education except as it applies to their chosen field where it is of utmost importance, but may not require a college degree or higher learning as defined by many.
There are also different kinds of intelligence. To name a few, innate intelligence, learned intelligence and common sense. Some individuals have all of these and more, while others, unfortunately, have none of them. Just my 2 cents.

I think intelligence and a college degree are 2 different things, which is why I list them both.

I don't think someone with a college degree is necessarily overall smarter than someone else, but I do think getting a degree is an achievement to be rightly celebrated. And data shows that a person with a degree or specialized training will have a better quality of life, making it a smart choice.

And I totally agree that higher education does not always translate to practical knowledge/common sense. I refer to this as "book smart, life dumb."

Elitists tend to think they have the moral authority to make choices for others - hence, I don't feel they make good representitives and should not be elected to political office.

Intellectuals span the gamut of political ideology, and tend to think things out before they act. That can be a bad thing or a good thing, but I'd like to think intellectuals can be reasoned with more so than non-intellectuals or elitists.

GW, Tootise et al:

You are all too gracious. I personally am sick of the rhetorical magic tricks of the Fox News and the Palin fringe of the republican party.

Uh oh- the dem candidate is really smart. I know. Let's call him liberal elite.

He is charasmatic and inspires many. Let's call him a celebrity.

This isn't working. We need to scare people. Let's call him a socialist and use some swastikas. Let's start a movement protesting taxes- nevermind that they aren't very high or that most got a tax break.

Just so tired of disengenous discourse. But it won't stop because it is so effective at rallying real Americans.

GW, Tootise et al:

You are all too gracious. I personally am sick of the rhetorical magic tricks of the Fox News and the Palin fringe of the republican party.

Uh oh- the dem candidate is really smart. I know. Let's call him liberal elite.

He is charasmatic and inspires many. Let's call him a celebrity.

This isn't working. We need to scare people. Let's call him a socialist and use some swastikas. Let's start a movement protesting taxes- nevermind that they aren't very high or that most got a tax break.

Just so tired of disengenous discourse. But it won't stop because it is so effective at rallying real Americans.

Hey Geo, just because I'm gracious, doesn't mean I'm not just as tired of it as you are...it has always puzzled me though how the language gets so warped, and why so many people buy into it...where/when did being intelligent and working hard to get an education become a thing to diss...when did having those make one not a "regular American.."
like so much else these days, when you break it down, it makes no sense at all...and yet someone pays the Glen Becks of the world to rant and rave on and on in this manner, and people watch him and then accept his rants as "gospel" -- my main point for my post was to point out the obvious dissonance.

GW, Tootise et al:

You are all too gracious. I personally am sick of the rhetorical magic tricks of the Fox News and the Palin fringe of the republican party.

Uh oh- the dem candidate is really smart. I know. Let's call him liberal elite.

He is charasmatic and inspires many. Let's call him a celebrity.

This isn't working. We need to scare people. Let's call him a socialist and use some swastikas. Let's start a movement protesting taxes- nevermind that they aren't very high or that most got a tax break.

Just so tired of disengenous discourse. But it won't stop because it is so effective at rallying real Americans.

I definitely get it Geo. If it is getting under your skin too much, back off and find some intelligent programming. I'm not talking about being too narrow in your news/program sources. I'm talking about making good choices for yourself.

FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama?s West Point speech.


Think Progress ? FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama’s West Point speech.

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

what would be the point? its like professional wrestling or reality TV. at its very best. and people do love those and pretty much buy into the act.

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

Not sure what you mean by "..don't take issue with it..."

Do you not take issue with Fox News intentionally dropping the audio or do you not take issue with the report about Fox dropping the audio?

I have cited many grievances with Fox. I believe their reporting causes much harm to this country. That said, compared to what I see overtly reported on the network on a daily basis, this isn't a huge crime. It's a parking infraction for a chronic drunk driver...